Case Law Details
Sri B R Jagadhish Vs District Registrar & Deputy Commissioner for Stamps (Karnataka High Court)
Conclusion: Deputy Commissioner for Stamps (DC) erroneously directed assessee to pay stamp duty under Article 28(a) of the Stamp Act without properly examining the recitals of the document where the relationship of the donor and the donee was clearly mentioned and without looking into the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Stamp Act, therefore, the order could not be sustained.
Held: Smt. T.N. Sarvamangala had two children – assessee herein and a daughter Renuka. The donor in consideration of the natural love and affection towards her children intended to gift the properties. Accordingly, the gift deed came to be executed by donor and the same was presented to the Senior sub-Registrar for registration along with an amount of Rs.2,300/- as the gift was within the family members. After examining the instrument along with other documents, Senior sub-Registrar impounded the instrument on the ground that the stamp duty paid was not in accordance with law and the impounded instrument was sent to the Deputy Commissioner for Stamps, for taking necessary action. Commissioner issued a notice calling upon assessee to appear and participate in the proceedings, to which assessee submitted a written reply stating that the stamp duty paid on the gift deed was proper, since the gift was between the family members. Despite the reply, Commissioner had erroneously passed the impugned order demanding stamp duty being 5.6% the value of the immovable property intended to be gifted holding that the gift was from a Trust and not between family members and further holding that the properties belong to Trust and were not the property of the donor. It was held Deputy Commissioner for Stamps, while considering the stamp duty payable has to consider the recitals of the document where the relationship of the donor and the donee is clearly mentioned. Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order, beyond his jurisdiction, without properly examining the recitals of the document and without looking into the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Stamp Act, and erroneously directed the assessee to pay stamp duty under Article 28(a) of the Stamp Act. Therefore, the impugned order could not be sustained.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The petitioner who claims to be a donee under a gift deed dated 13.12.2013 is before this Court for a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner for Stamps, vide Annexure `A’ and a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent – Senior sub-Registrar, to register the gift deed dated 13.12.2013 without insisting on payment of stamp duty under Article 28(a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and to release the registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure `C’.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
